Spot on. Unfortunately I fully expect capitulation on this issue from ALPA.

Perhaps resuming the long break would help.




Why would there be tremendous implications for the group unless dalpa allows there to be? A contract is a contract and SD's letter does not match up with said contract. So what is dalpa going to do? Are they going to cave and allow this to happen with said "tremendous implications" or are they going to defend the contract?



This seems like an open and shut grievance, especially when they notified in advance, and in writing, that they are going to do it.

How about leaving the status quo until next contract negotiations. Enough of the givebacks during billions in profits. I have a feeling that anything we would get for a concession on this (or poss. any other 117 issue) will be worth far less than what we give up. Having to acknowledge within two hours while on long call is a no-go item imho. You could not even be at a movie in some cases.

It has been known that PT 117 was coming for, what, almost 2 years now?

As others have already said, abide by the contract and the FAR's. Simple.

Excellent post, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to "contact your CPO." This is a straigt up contract issue and ALPA is the exclusive agent to negotiate our contract.

For starters, ALPA will run this through several folks to ensure they make the right response, so the quality of their response from subject matter experts is probably better than what most of us, individually, could conjure up.

Yesterday we saw a comm item from our union trying to preserve constructive engagement, but, this may not be management's MO. I am all for preserving a good working relationship, at the same time I believe there would be no harm to getting a permit to walk in circles in front of the venue for Delta's "investors day" event. Delta should not want "labor problems" to accompany every article on the Company's performance. I'm not saying we do picket, but it would be nice to have the permit to do so in our back pocket.

IMHO the Company is beginning to position itself for Contract 2015. They want us to buy back compliance with the North Atlantic TA, the Virgin (not yet deal) and apparently our own scheduling provisions. If they can bank a practice of non compliance, it becomes a bit of an equity for them.

If this goes in the direction it appears to be headed, there might be some hostage taking. No reason to try to do the union's job and risk getting your name on some list over at the CPO. This is not something we ar working together on, as you so well stated, this was unilaterally imposed.

We could absolutely dump capacity all over their top 10 routes and the change would only be from slightly over record profits to slightly under record profits. Time to punish them for their insolence.

He's funny enough as it is, there's no need to stroke his ego. :cool:

I would expect immediate clarification from DALPA on whether we are obligate to acknowledge within 2 hours or not. And if we choose to follow the contract, what the ramifications will be

Yes and that is definately a negative. But it appears thats a consequence of the FAR's. OTOH, the "always-illegal-but-they-tried-it-anyway pseudo as-needed-lookback-rest on an as needed basis" trick is going away and (if I'm reading it right) the asinine mandatory company duty on a "day off" 3pm schedule check is going away as well. Again, if I'm reading it right, it looks like no more super early day one starts. That is a massive QOL improvment for all reserves and especially commuters.

I agree that the 2 hour window could harm commuters but there are ways to mitigate that. We always have free gogo in flight so unless you are below 10 for over 2 hours you can schedule check then. We could also cooperatively work something out so that we tell CS what flight we're on if its in that contact danger zone and/or wifi isn't working and they can contact us through the operating crew, which they are required to be in contact with anyway theoretically. That still leaves a hole for off liners of course but at least we can get started bridging the gaps this creates while immediately enjoying some of the other massive QOL improvements.

They way I read the update it implied that a 10 hour blackout period was FAR mandatory. I believe the contract says if an FAR is more restrictive then its controlling, and even if it doesn't, the FAR's superceede it anyway. I don't see any way the 9/3 rolling window can be preserved as a matter of federal law. Do you?

Hmmm someone above mentioned we could still legally have the rolling 9 hour notification window and THEN still need 10 hours rest. While that would basically be a "get out of trip free" card most of the time and be very costly to the company, that could be a way to strictly honor both our CBA and the regs. I hadn't thought of that before, and that is definately something we should look into. As for "buying back the JV compliance" Foxtrot that. Maybe if they want us to abide by the unilateral 10 hour interpretation we can get 3 years of upside (plus full retro block hours from being out of balance the whole time) followed by a 1 year "balancing period" instead of the other way around.

Is it not contractual that if hotel transportation does not arrive within a specified time after checkout, you get a cab and bill the company? It would probably still be faster (and safer) to wait the obligatory time and get a cab. Hey...it's JKF...you wait for everything.

With the company pushing us to public transportation and otherwise abrogating the contract, surely ALPA realizes what's at stake ref: DPA.

Rolling over on these issues will all but guarantee a representation vote.